Succession Issues

[Emily]

I agree with Lillia. When we write about a dynasty change, we are talking about the name, the genetic dynasty really isn't changing at all. Because a daughter ascends and not a son the "dynasty" changes? Not so in my book -- you take the mother's name for the family, like Jo suggested is one of the options in Germany.

In regard to Japan, I think when the culture has come to a point that it can accept a female, then the succession law ought to be changed so the firstborn inherits. In a society such as Japan that is conservative and entrenched in the tradition and meaning of a male "tenno", if females inherit only in the absence of a male, there will still be pressure on a Crown Princess to produce a male, and females will continue to be thought of as "second best". That is one of the reasons I think the way I do about the succession -- Aiko will be biding her time until a male is restored as Emperor. I think it is unfair to put a female into that kind of role when evidence suggests the society isn't ready it.

In re-reading the interviews of Aki, Michi, Naru and Masako, I tried to discern their ideas about the succession, first, because they know the "pulse" of the culture much better than I, and second, because their understanding will, I think, have been influenced by discussions with politicos and other influential societal figures, as well as the common person. Although they are supposedly "isolated" at the Palace, a look at their official functions shows they meet with a broad spectrum of Japanese society, as well as, parts of the international community. With their access to many ways of thinking and I am sure they thought alot about this issue, and I would love to know their thoughts.

In a different circumstance, the United States is supposed to be so liberated about males and females and yet we just can't elect a female president -- "society" isn't ready for it and some of the most vocal opponents to a female president are women.

[Emily]

Originally Posted by Lillia

King Henry the XIII went absolutely mad over this same kind of issue and look at all the problems he created over his 'must have a male' stance. In the end, a very capable daughter ended up succeeding him anyway (actually both daughters held the role of monarch). Just my opinion.

And when, who was it - James Stuart?, took over after the death of QEI, wasn't his claim to the throne through the sister of Henry the VII or something like that?

[Sister Morphine]

Originally Posted by Lillia

ok. I have to say though humbly, that I did not read anywhere that anyone was advocating that a male offspring would not be able to 'carry the dynasty further'.

The issue seemed to get around somehow to gender of the firstborn offspring. If the child would be a girl, fine. A boy, fine. That imo would be a point about birth order of any children to the emporer or Crown Prince.

If the Emporer or Crown Princely couple has all girl children, no problem. If he has girls first, then boys, birth order determines next-in-line, not gender. If the emporer or Crown Prince had all girls and his other relatives had boys, good for them.

The emporer's own natural children or the the children from the Crown Princely couple would the next-in-line in accordance to birth order, gender has nothing to do with it.

IMO, as long as the children are healthy, it should never be a problem to have girls next to inherit (and not after a younger brother), especially if they are the natural children of the reigning emporer or crown princely couple, the girl would be just as entitled as the boy, imo. But it is a subject for the Japanese to settle for themselves.


King Henry the XIII went absolutely mad over this same kind of issue and look at all the problems he created over his 'must have a male' stance. In the end, a very capable daughter ended up succeeding him anyway (actually both daughters held the role of monarch). Just my opinion.

Not King Henry XIII. That's 13. You mean Henry VIII. That's the 8th.

[Toledo]

This is one interesting thread because we have come to a point to realize is not just about the heir being a boy or a girl but also about tradition. For example, we won't have this round of ideas in respect to Muslim royalty that is very similar to (royal) France's old Salic law.

I'll play devil's advocate and bring up one more point to add to the thread about the Succesion in Japan: if Japan by tradition excludes females from the throne or gives preference to men over women, are we more outraged because we see Japan as a culture closer to ours? Even when their traditions are so different and much older than most European and American nations?

Originally Posted by Furienna

...If Aiko became empress, her children would still be the first of a new dynasty. If there was no prince to carry the dynasty further, they would have no choice, but now, they have Hisahito, who's able to do that. However, they should allow princesses to be heirs, so Japan doesn't have another crown princess, who gets totally destroyed by pressure of giving birth to a son, like it was with Masako. If there's no prince, well, too bad, but as long as there's a princess, the sucession is still safe. But if there is a prince, let him ascend the thrown before a princess.

I'm afraid that wait could end up being used against Aiko. I believe I mentioned this someplace else that if Aiko is crowned empress and marries a commoner she does not lose her status. But is she marries a commoner while being a princess, she could end up expelled from the imperial family like her aunt.

[Lillia]

Interesting points Toledo.

(First, thanks to those who corrected me on my earlier error. I did mean King Henry 8th (not 13th) )

Q: ,aybe this is said already too, but was not the recent structures of royalty of Japan and in the Middle East set up by Europeans anyway? I mean, if one looks past the clear cultural differences and their impact, would not the basic structures follow the same basic set up as the european houses?

Any advise on this woud be greatly appreciated, although I am surely not trying to get off topic.

Regarding the wait: sometimes people 'solve' an issue by waiting for it to go away on its own ('ignore it and it will go away'). I am not saying that this could be a tactic here, I would not know. But I do agree that if the issue is let sit for years and years, then it may lose steam and fade away.

[Emily]

Toledo, I also think your point about "are we more outraged because we are similar" is right on. One of the things I have learned from this discussion - and from the wonderful mandyy who keeps posting article links on this - is just how different we are, when I thought we were more similar. I had no idea how entrenched and conservative the Imperial System is. It has shed new light on a comment Prince Charles made quite a while ago when, referring to the 'gray men' that run Buckingham Palace, he said something to the effect of, well, it's alot better than having to work for the IHA. I am not sure I can say I am at the point of respecting the Imperial System but it has been very interesting to learn about it.

[quote Furienna] However, they should allow princesses to be heirs, so Japan doesn't have another crown princess, who gets totally destroyed by pressure of giving birth to a son, like it was with Masako.

It is interesting to wonder if a male consort of, for example Aiko, would have problems adjusting to the Imperial lifestyle in the way that Michiko and Masako have -- although I recognize each woman had different issues. But let's say 35 years from now Aiko is still Crown Princess and her consort has only sired females. And we all know who decides the gender -- well, actually, as I write this I realize the IHA decides the gender (!) and they will just produce a male -- so my argument is moot. But say the consort has trouble adjusting to this lifestyle -- as a male in that society would he have a breakdown? or would rebellion be acceptable? would his complaints be more readily listened to because he is a male? I think there are pressures inherent in that lifestyle - whether it was the "mother-in-law" from hell, the denial of a career, the inability to conceive - and my guess is any consort is going to run into those unless the system loosens up. And can it loosen up and survive?

[bekalc]

Originally Posted by Lillia

ok. I have to say though humbly, that I did not read anywhere that anyone was advocating that a male offspring would not be able to 'carry the dynasty further'.

The issue seemed to get around somehow to gender of the firstborn offspring. If the child would be a girl, fine. A boy, fine. That imo would be a point about birth order of any children to the emporer or Crown Prince.
the emporer or Crown Prince had all girls and his other relatives had boys,

If the Emporer or Crown Princely couple has all girl children, no problem. If he has girls first, then boys, birth order determines next-in-line, not gender. If good for them.

The emporer's own natural children or the the children from the Crown Princely couple would the next-in-line in accordance to birth order, gender has nothing to do with it.

IMO, as long as the children are healthy, it should never be a problem to have girls next to inherit (and not after a younger brother), especially if they are the natural children of the reigning emporer or crown princely couple, the girl would be just as entitled as the boy, imo. But it is a subject for the Japanese to settle for themselves.


King Henry the XIII went absolutely mad over this same kind of issue and look at all the problems he created over his 'must have a male' stance. In the end, a very capable daughter ended up succeeding him anyway (actually both daughters held the role of monarch). Just my opinion.

Yes, but the Tudor dynasty ended with Elizabeth, who was suceeded by her First cousin's Mary's son. Both of Henry's daughters had issues bearing children.

One of the problems with females is that females have less of window to concieve an error than men do. So its easier for the line to be passed on when its based on the male line. Then, as many said it would be very hard for Aiko to really get a husband.. While young girls may dream about marrying the Prince etc.. Most young men do not dream about being Prince Consorts. There are differences between the sexes.. Yes, these types of marriages can't happen (Queen Victoria/Albert. Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip but it helped that the men in those cases where from royal familes themselves who needed the position...In Princess Aiko's case, well who could she really marry appropriately?

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Emily

In a different circumstance, the United States is supposed to be so liberated about males and females and yet we just can't elect a female president -- "society" isn't ready for it and some of the most vocal opponents to a female president are women.

Wait and see.... I'Ve read comments that the next election might well be between Hillary Clinton and Condoleeza Rice....

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Toledo

. I believe I mentioned this someplace else that if Aiko is crowned empress and marries a commoner she does not lose her status. But is she marries a commoner while being a princess, she could end up expelled from the imperial family like her aunt.

Toledo, I read this source after you linked it here to this forum and while it says "empress" in the text, I wasn't sure it didn't just talk about the wife/widow of the Tenno in that article of the Imperial law. One should check the original wording in Japanese to make sure that the word used for empress regnant and wife of the emperor is the same in Japan, but how could that be done?

[Toledo]

I know, it's difficult to get translations of words that also mean ideas in a language most of us don't understand. The part on Aiko's future if she marries before or after becoming empress is one of the technicalities we posted in the other thread related to the Imperial Household. I believe the one were I posted some sections of the 1947 rules and how they relate to the members of the royal family.
If laws for the imperial family don't change, Aiko could end up as an ex-princess if she marries to a commoner.

[Next Star]

Originally Posted by Furienna

Well, as I see it, succession is about tradition, not equality. And really, men carry the family line further, not women. It's not that women make worse monarchs. But the thrown should go to the person, who should have it according to tradition.

There are three examples of females carrying a family line in the 21st century (Queen Elizabeth II Of Great Britian, Queen Marageth II Of Denmark And Queen Beatix Of Netherlands. And may I say their doing a good job.

[Emmily]

There was a new prime minister elected in Japan. Will that have any bearing on whether the succession will change?

[Furienna]

Originally Posted by Next Star

There are three examples of females carrying a family line in the 21st century (Queen Elizabeth II Of Great Britian, Queen Marageth II Of Denmark And Queen Beatix Of Netherlands. And may I say their doing a good job.

But Elizabeth II's descendants will be Mountbatten-Windsors, not pure Windsors, Queen Margareth II's descendants will be Lamborde de Monpezats, not Oldenburg-Glückburgs, and the Netherlands have had three different dynasties on the thrown the last century. These queens have produced heirs, and I'm sure they all do a good job, but they can't carry on their family line/dynasty.

[UserDane]

Originally Posted by Furienna

But Elizabeth II's descendants will be Mountbatten-Windsors, not pure Windsors, Queen Margareth II's descendants will be Lamborde de Monpezats, not Oldenburg-Glückburgs, and the Netherlands have had three different dynasties on the thrown the last century. These queens have produced heirs, and I'm sure they all do a good job, but they can't carry on their family line/dynasty.

Why on earth shouldn't they be able to do that??? Had QMII been a man, met a nice French girl by the family name of Lamborde de Monpezats, would their two boys then be more Oldenborg-Glückburgs than Lamborde de Montepezats than Frederik and Joachim are now??
Why are Elizabeth II's descendant not 'pure' Windors. Is Elizabeth II herself of 'pure' Windsor blood because her father was the king, whereas her own children are not because she is the mother, not the father?
I sincerely hope I have misunderstood your meaning.

[Lillia]

Originally Posted by Furienna

But Elizabeth II's descendants will be Mountbatten-Windsors, not pure Windsors, Queen Margareth II's descendants will be Lamborde de Monpezats, not Oldenburg-Glückburgs, and the Netherlands have had three different dynasties on the thrown the last century. These queens have produced heirs, and I'm sure they all do a good job, but they can't carry on their family line/dynasty.

So that would mean that the dutch CP W-A, Denmark's & CP Fred and Prince Charles of England are not really part of the 'family dynasty, because their mothers according to the statement, are just that -- women. Their royal genes have been 'diluted somehow? These women have not had royal 'pure' offspring, you think? Even though these reigning Queens have done a good job, that's all they've done, right?

These men, the current crown princes, have all been fooled into thinking they are part of the dynastic family somehow while the plain truth is that they are not 'pure', as you say? And this would also be the arguement that the IHA has used to hold their position on the issue.

hmmm, I think this word 'pure' that has slipped into the conversation is sounding suspicious...:dry:

I agree with UserDane, I hope something got lost in the translation (even if it did not, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt).

Well, I think traditions can and do change, like people do (eventually) and hopefully for the better, because we can all probably name certain beloved institutional 'traditions' that were not so beneficial (but only to a few and very harmful to others) but were deeply entrenched in their respective societies. Not all, but some.

I think one reason why this very conversation is probably because there are some people who are so bent on upholding a certain institutionalized way of thinking (like Henry VIII was) that they never question anything about it, they fight tooth and nail for it and cannot possibly see anything else. While others do at least ask the question and talk about how to keep the institution in tact but modify what might be thought of as some of the more harmful parts.

In any event, I don't think there's anything wrong with people making some progress in their thinking on certain areas. A change in the IHA policy could prevent the problems that Michiko and Masako have had to live with.

JMO.

[Furienna]

I meant QEII's children aren't "pure" Windsors in the meaning that their last name is not Windsor, it's Windsor-Mountbatten or Mountbatten-Windsor, I don't remember which, but it's not only "Windsor". They don't belong to the same dynasty as the queen, because you belong to your father's dynasty, not your mother's. It's the same thing in Denmark. Frederic and Joachim don't belong to their mother's dynasty, they belong to their father's dynasty. It's just like the fact, that my sister and I can't carry our family line further, only our brother can. You make it sound like I don't think women are worth anything. Of course we are. But we can't carry on a dynasty.

[UserDane]